Constitutional Law

Subscribe to Constitutional Law via RSS

(1) Corporate Disclosures, (2) Indirect Advocacy, (3) Climate Change, and (4) Institutional Investors 

The Union of Concerned Scientists, an alliance of more than 400,000 citizens and scientists, released a report today: Tricks of the Trade: How Companies Influence Climate Policy Through Business and Trade Associations.  The report is based on data collected by CDP, an international not-for-profit that “works with investors, companies and governments to drive environmental disclosure”.  CDP administers an annual climate reporting questionnaire to more than 5,000 companies worldwide with the support of various institutional investors (722 institutional investors with over $87 trillion in capital). The 2013 questionnaire asked companies about climate policy influence, including board membership in trade associations, lobbying, and donations to research organizations.

Tricks of the Trade highlights outsourced political influence through the use of trade associations and interest groups that lobby on behalf of their members rather than the members engaging in these activities in their own name.  The report highlights 3 main issues:  (1) lack of transparency, (2) incongruence with the outsourced message among responding companies, and (3) the continued role that the Citizens United decision has on corporate spending and political discourse.

 Transparency:

  • Of the 5,557 companies that received the

…

On Tuesday, I attended the oral argument for the National Association of Manufacturers v. SEC—the Dodd-Frank conflict minerals case. Trying to predict what a court will do based on body language and the tone of questioning at oral argument, especially in writing, is foolish and crazy, but I will do so anyway.

I am cautiously optimistic that the appellate court will send the conflict mineral rule back to the SEC to retool based on the three arguments generated the most discussion. First, the judges appeared divided on whether the SEC  had abused its discretion by changing the statutory language requiring issuers to report if minerals “did” originate from the DRC or surrounding companies rather than the current SEC language of “may have” originated. This language would sweep in products in which there is a mere possibility rather than a probability of originating in covered countries. One judge grilled the SEC like I grill my law students about the actual statutory language and legislative intent, while another appeared satisfied with SEC’s explanation that issuers did not have to file if the lack of certainty was due to a small number of responses from suppliers or for lack of information. My prediction-…

The following information was shared with me by my friend, Professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy at Stetson Law.  On February 28, 2014, Stetson Law in Gulfport, FLorida, will host: 

Taking Stock of Citizens United: How the Law Has (and Has Not) Changed Four Years Later.

Panel One: Quantifying the Problem of Money in Politics
Citizens United opened a new avenue for corporations and unions to spend in politics by purchasing political ads. This ability to spend was added to older avenues of political activity such as corporate and union segregated funds (SSFs or PACs), lobbying and direct contributions in certain states. The question of what political spenders get in return for this largess remains an open one.
 
Panel Two: The Risk of Corruption Collides with Free Speech
From a Constitutional law perspective, the courts have long wrestled with the placing political spending into a single paradigm. On one hand, courts have recognized that running for political office is costly and fundraising implicates First Amendment concerns such as the freedom of speech and association. On the other hand, campaign spending can be a corrupting force in the democratic process. Layered on top of this is an impulse by the courts to treat

…

Yesterday, I attended the Annual Meeting of the Society of Socio-Economists.  Unfortunately, I was only able to participate in the second half of the program due to flight delays, but the discussions I did participate in were fantastic and I hope to publish a number of posts passing on some key points.  Today, I’d like to start by highlighting the book “The Citizen’s Share: Putting Ownership Back into Democracy” by Joseph R. Blasi, Richard B. Freeman, and Douglas L. Kruse (I understand Joseph Blasi was one of the presenters at the meeting–though I was chairing a concurrent plenary session at the time).  Here is a description from the Yale University Press:

The idea of workers owning the businesses where they work is not new.  In America’s early years, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison believed that the best economic plan for the Republic was for citizens to have some ownership stake in the land, which was the main form of productive capital. This book traces the development of that share idea in American history and brings its message to today’s economy, where business capital has replaced land as the source of wealth creation.   Based on…

In 13 Things We Learned about Money in Politics in 2013, written by Stetson Professor Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, numbers 9 and 10 highlight the intersection of corporate and campaign finance laws.

10. Disappointing nearly 700,000 members of the public who had asked for more transparency from public companies, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) refused to require transparency for corporate political spending — for now.

9. Shareholder suits over corporate political spending bookended the year. In January, the Comptroller of New York sued Qualcomm, as a shareholder under Delaware law, to get their books and records of political spending. In December, the insurance giant Aetna was suedby a shareholder represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) for hiding its political spending.

To access the rest of the list and other campaign finance information provided by the Brennan Center for Justice, click here.

-Anne Tucker

Richard Schragger & Micah Schwartzman have posted “Some Realism about Corporate Rights” on SSRN.  Here is the abstract:

Can we meaningfully speak of a church’s right to conscience or a corporation’s right to religious liberty? One way to approach this question is by inquiring into the nature of churches and corporations, asking whether these are the kinds of entities that can or should have rights. We have recently seen this kind of reasoning in public debates over whether corporations have free speech rights, and, relatedly, in arguments about the religious free exercise rights of churches, non-profits, and for-profit corporations. Those in favor of such rights sometimes argue that corporations and churches are moral agents, capable of exercising rights separate and apart from the rights and interests of their members; whereas, those opposed tend to argue that churches, corporations or groups are mere aggregations of individuals, or else artificial persons created or recognized by the state to advance the interests of those who compose them.

In this paper, we argue that this form of argument is mistaken and that debates about the ontological status of group or corporate entities are largely irrelevant. One does not need a particular…

The increase in institutional ownership of corporate stock has led to questions about the role of financial intermediaries in the corporate governance process. This post focuses on the issues associated with the so-called “separation of ownership from ownership,” arising from the growth of three types of institutional investors, pensions, mutual funds, and hedge funds.

Originally, the anti-takeover law passed its court challenges because the judges accepted faulty data that showed investors could acquire at least 85 percent of the target corporation and satisfy the Williams Act, Subramanian said. But none of the cases used to support the anti-takeover law actually allowed hostile suitors to acquire a controlling 85 percent of a target company, he said, and plaintiffs using research from new studies would be able to convince a judge that the statute is unconstitutionally restrictive.

For me, the financial crisis was an eye-opening moment. I’ve long believed in free market economics and believed that the Church would do a lot of good…

I have posted an updated draft of my latest paper Rehabilitating Concession Theory, which is forthcoming in the Oklahoma Law Review, on SSRN.  I have made only minor changes to the the prior draft, but I thought I’d post the abstract and link to the paper here in case any blog readers haven’t seen the paper before and might be interested in the content.

In Citizens United v. FEC, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that, “the Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker’s corporate identity.” The decision remains controversial, with many arguing that the Court effectively overturned over 100 years of precedent. I have previously argued that this decision turned on competing conceptions of the corporation, with the majority adopting a contractarian view while the dissent advanced a state concession view. However, the majority was silent on the issue of corporate theory, and the dissent went so far as to expressly disavow any role for corporate theory at all. At least as far as the dissent is concerned, this avoidance of corporate theory may have been motivated at least in part by the fact that concession theory has been marginalized to the point

…

As Marc O. DeGirolami notes here: “In an extensive
decision, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
has enjoined the enforcement of the HHS contraception mandate against several
for-profit corporations as well as the individual owners of those corporations.”  I have not had a chance to read the entire
decision (which you can find here), but I did do a quick search for “corporation” and pass on the
following excerpts I found interesting.

The plaintiffs are two Catholic families and their closely
held corporations—one a construction company in Illinois and the other a
manufacturing firm in Indiana. The businesses are secular and for profit, but
they operate in conformity with the faith commitments of the families that own
and manage them…. These cases—two among many currently pending in courts around
the country—raise important questions about whether business owners and their
closely held corporations may assert a religious objection to the contraception
mandate and whether forcing them to provide this coverage substantially burdens
their religious-exercise rights. We hold that the plaintiffs—the business
owners and their companies—may challenge the mandate. We further hold that
compelling them to cover these services substantially burdens their

…

Yesterday was election
day!  Elections hold a special place
in my heart, and I remain interested in the interplay of corporations and campaigns,
especially in a post-Citizens United
world.  The races, candidates, and
results, however, received significantly less attention without a federal
election (mid-term or general) to garner the spotlight.  The 2014 election season, which officially
begins today, has several unknowns. While Citizens
United facilitated unlimited independent expenditures (distinguishable from
direct campaign contributions) for individuals and corporations alike,
corporations remain unable to donate directly to campaigns.  Individual campaign contributions are
currently capped at $2,500 per candidate/election and are subject to aggregate
caps as well.  McCutcheon
v. FEC, which was argued
before the US Supreme Court on October 8, 2013, challenges the individual
campaign contribution cap.  If McCutcheon removes individual caps, the foundation
will be laid to challenge corporate campaign contribution bans as well.  See this pre-mortem
on McCutcheon by Columbia University law professor Richard Briffault.  As for current corporate/campaign finance
issues, the focus remains on corporate disclosures of campaign expenditures in
the form of shareholder
resolutions (118 have been successful) and company-initiated
disclosure policies, possible
SEC disclosure requirements for corporate political expenditures, and the
threat…